[OSM-talk] AAAA openstreetmap still doesn't use ipv6

[Thomas Schäfer]

Am Donnerstag 02 Juli 2009 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> Hi,
>
> Claudius wrote:
> > There are not enough IPv4 adresses for Africa and Latin America already
> > which is why they are assigning IPv6 only already. Now with the new east
> > african internet cable this might lead to even more IPv6 users in
> > potential OSM countries, but... all those IPv6 users cannot reach IPv4
> > only servers.
>
> This is an honest question because I really have not researched the
> matter: Are there *real* people in developing countries whom one might
> consider potential mappers who buy Internet access and get IPv6 only
> with no HTTP access to IPv4 only servers? Would not any provider who
> cannot offer IPV4 addresses be forced to set up easy-to-use proxy or
> masquerading systems?

It is not only the developing countries. Also mobile-ISP in Europe torture 
their custumers with NAT, Proxies and so on because of the lack of ipv4 
addresses.

ipv6-providers have solutions for ipv4-connectivity,otherwise they had no 
chance to introduce ipv6.

>
> (Can they even reach ebay, amazon, cnn, twitter and the lot then?)

They can reach the old world - with additional expenses at the network-side.

>
> Or is this something rather hypothetical, much like it would
> theoretically be possible to set up an IPv6-only dialup in Germany if
> you really, really wanted?
>
> I'm trying to find out if IPv6 is something that is pragmatically
> required, or if this is rather something ideology-based - I read a lot
> of "should" in Thomas's statements. My opinion is that if we have reason

OSM is a community-project. Therefore I say "should". At work I am the "chief" 
regarding my part of the network - there is it a "must".


> to believe that, for the forseeable future, even those IPv6-only
> machines that might exist somewhere will have an effortless way to
> connect to the IPv4 world (and the only thing to be said against this is
> that it is "technically uncool"), then I would not waste a minute trying
> to be cool. But if there are real-world situations where people who can
> use the rest of the internet normally turn away from OSM because we
> don't talk to them, then we should act.

Theres is more effort to connect ipv6-only-hosts/nat-ed/proxy-ed Hosts to ipv4 
than for us to enable ipv6.

>
> It is probably a moot point anyway because, as someone else pointed out,
> either UCL does it or they don't and we would be the last ones to raise
> a fuss with them over anything.

You don't want realize. I have to accept that. 

Sorry.